Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), who has been a welcome new addition to this House.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), whose work in retirement savings is well known to this body. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), whose concern for quality-of- life issues speaks well of retirees.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who once again has helped us reinforce the arguments that we are undertaking today. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have an honest disagreement here today reflected in the proposals that are before this House. This honest disagreement I think crystallizes along the lines of who is to benefit from this legislation. Once again, on the Democratic side, we argue, I think with considerable merit, that the legislation in front of us does not do enough to help middle-income Americans or low-income wage earners. The substitute that we will discuss later on today offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is, I believe, the only way that we can bring a balanced pension package to the President that he will sign this year. The substitute that we will offer later on will add a dimension that the underlying bill lacks and which it badly needs. One of the key criticisms of the bill before us is that the benefit increases go only to those lucky few who make a maximum contribution under current law. The retirement savings account proposal takes a good first step at addressing this lack of balance. It gives a refundable tax credit to low- and moderate-income workers who participate in an employer-sponsored pension plan or an individual retirement account. The maximum credit is 50 percent of qualifying contributions, and would be available to married workers earning less than $25,000 when fully phased in. The credit phases down to zero at $75,000 for married workers filing jointly. Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that the RSA proposal does not create a separate account like an individual retirement account. With all of the pension vehicles currently in law, placing one more into law really did not seem to make a lot of sense. Rather, the tax credit is tied to contributions made to an IRA, or a qualified employer-sponsored pension plan like a 401(k) plan, or another similar defined contribution plan. This was done for simplicity, and to ease the administration of plan sponsors. The RSA proposal before us today has gone through similar and many versions. In its final version, it preserves the original goal of the administration, which is to provide a real incentive for low- and moderate-income workers to participate in our retirement system while meeting concerns expressed by the pension community that the proposal be administrable. For example, the original RSA proposal was designed to deliver the tax credit to business or financial institutions as reimbursement for making employer contributions to eligible employees. The pension community argued that this design was too complex, and that some small businesses or tax-exempt entities would not have the ability to absorb tax credits because they may have little or no tax liability. Thus, the proposal was changed to a tax credit for individuals. The proposal is intended to provide a stronger incentive for individuals to save for retirement, of which we all agree. For those who have not done so to date, a 50 percent credit encourages them to take the first step in the right direction. For those who currently save a little, it encourages them to save more. Given all of the competing demands, it is often very hard for many workers, even middle income workers, to set aside a percentage of their wages toward retirement. Refundability is a key feature of this credit. It allows us to provide a strong incentive to some workers who simply could not otherwise participate in a pension plan. This is not a panacea for low-income workers. The average deferral rate for nonhighly compensated workers who make less than $30,000 a year is less than 6 percent. The RSA proposal is the only thing that would help us to help these workers, and it is crucial to do so if we wish to bring some balance to this package. Likewise, the small business tax credits contained in the amendment may provide a significant increase in pension coverage and pension participation for employees of small businesses. The first proposal gives a 50 percent tax credit for 3 years to small businesses for their start-up costs associated with a new pension plan. That is their administrative and retirement education costs. Not only would this provide an incentive for small businesses to offer a plan to employees, but it also could be used as a marketing tool by financial institutions or pension advisors to promote the adoption of a pension plan to small business. The second small business credit would provide a 50 percent credit for employer contributions to a pension plan for nonhighly compensated employees if the employer is willing to contribute 1 to 3 percent of compensation through their employees' accounts. This credit is designed to encourage small businesses to make employer contributions to the plan they sponsored for their employees. By encouraging small employers to make contributions on behalf of their non-highly compensated employees, retirement savings for all these workers will increase. Clearly the Rangel substitute will make this a much better bill. It will provide significant incentives for low- and middle-income workers to participate in those pension plans that are offered by their employers. This is clearly where we need to concentrate our incentives because this is where the need is greatest, among low- and moderate- income wage-earners. For higher-income wage-earners, those who already save a maximum under current law, the bill in front of us provides a boost for their savings. So as long as that increase does not lead to any pension coverage being dropped, as some strongly argue, then there is nothing wrong with the increases, as long as we consider low- and moderate- income wage-earners. However, the debate today is over the possible unintended consequences of this and other provisions in the underlying bill. It certainly will continue throughout the year. There are additional controversies that surround this legislation. For example, the Department of the Treasury and some outside groups argue strongly that some of the provisions of this bill can actually lead to a shrinking of pension coverage for low- and moderate-income workers. They cite most often the provisions of the bill that weaken the so-called top-heavy rules and the nondiscrimination rules which are designed to protect non-key employees by making sure they get a minimum amount of benefit from an employer's pension plan. I know the authors of this bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) included, strongly believe the opposite, and that these are just simplification proposals that will do no harm. But there are many others, myself included, who feel just as strongly that the proposals will do harm. For example, we have a letter from 30 organizations, including the AARP, the Gray Panthers, the Pension Rights Centers, the National Urban League, the Older Women's League, and others who argue that if we look at the changes in this bill that affect top-heavy rules and nondiscrimination rules, that taken together, these provisions would serve to aggravate the imbalances in our current pension system. We urge Members to drop these provisions from their bill. A top-heavy plan, by example, is a definition which we offer to the value of benefits when top employees exceed 60 percent of the package. In order to make sure that all other employees receive a benefit, the rules require faster vesting and a certain minimum benefit for non-key employees. This has led to an increased benefit for those employees. While top-heavy rules are not being repealed, the changes made by the bill may redefine some plans as being not top-heavy, which in turn means that the workers covered by those plans lose their current protections. Ironically, one of the arguments for keeping the changes in the top- heavy rules is that there are nondiscrimination rules in place to protect workers. A top-heavy plan already meets the nondiscrimination rules, yet gives key employees more than 60 percent of the benefits, so Congress has already made a judgment that nondiscrimination rules are not enough protection in a top-heavy plan. Moreover, the other major complaint about this bill is that the nondiscrimination rules are weakened, which in turn will provide, again from the letter, ``less protection and ultimately less retirement security'' for workers and their families. Mr. Speaker, these are some of the concerns that have been expressed and some of the provisions that need to get worked out by the end of this legislative year. There is still time to work these proposals out with President Clinton. I believe that every one of us on this floor wants to see a balanced pension package that can reach the President's desk in October and be signed into law. Unfortunately, this bill will not be signed into law. We may have somewhat different views as to where that balance is, but that is what the legislative process is for. With that in mind, the substitute that the Democratic Party will offer today is as constructive an approach as is possible, signalling where some of us continue to have problems with the underlying bill, as well as sending a clear message that we would like to try to bridge the gap. I hope everyone will take this in the spirit in which it is offered, and that we can make real progress on pension reform this year. Having said that, I also think that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) have served an important purpose, and that is to generate considerable attention to the issue of pension legislation. I believe there is still time to work out the differences that we currently hold and to get a good pension reform bill that President Clinton will sign. Given the knowledge I have of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), I think that is still possible. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. This was supposed to be deleted last evening; and it is my understanding, based upon what the staff tells me, that it simply was a miscalculation.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished leader of the Democratic members on the Committee on Ways and Means. He is very effective. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we do not object to the legislation necessarily that has been proposed here. We believe that the amendment that we have offered can actually strengthen this legislation. I think the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) adequately summed up the arguments that we offer. If an individual is willing to go to work in America, they ought to be in a pension system. That is precisely what our legislation, my amendment, proposes to do. This is a decent start that has been offered here today. We can improve this legislation, thereby providing an opportunity for people who do get out of bed every morning and go to work to have pension rights. It is our argument today, based upon the evidence in front of us, that the legislation as proposed does not go far enough. We speak to those in the middle-income range, we speak to those in the lower-income range based upon the notion that if an individual goes to work, they ought to have pension rights. In the end, that is what our proposal is all about. That is what our substitute stands for. We have had a good debate today; a clarifying debate. We think our substitute stands up under the magnifying glass. While we believe the legislation proposed is a good start, it is simply not enough. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I am opposed to the bill in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, for the last 3 hours, we have had an opportunity to clarify many differences about the legislation that is in front of us. I think all of us would acknowledge that the work that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) have done on this legislation has been a decent start. In fact, we believe that the substitute we offered was Cardin- Portman improved. Cardin-Portman plus. We also would argue, I think, that the substitute that we offered spoke to the issue that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) acknowledged about doing more for middle-income and lower-income wage earners in America. What is important about this discussion, I think, is simply this. Some of the people that have spoken today on this legislation have suggested that there is some doubt as to whether or not the President will veto this legislation in its current form. Let me reiterate as I did an hour ago. Secretary Summers has told me in a phone conversation he will recommend to the President that this legislation in its current form be vetoed. We have an opportunity to fix this legislation, acknowledging a good start but an improved opportunity. Let me speak specifically, if I can, to the motion to recommit that is in front of this body. We all acknowledge that there is a desire for tax cuts based upon the current surplus projections. But the question before us now is whether or not those tax cuts leave sufficient resources for other priorities. This motion to recommit provides that the tax reductions proposed will not go into effect unless the Secretary of the Treasury certifies the following: that the bill will not invade the portion of existing surpluses dedicated to Medicare and Social Security programs, and--and the most important part of this motion to recommit--a meaningful Medicare prescription medicine benefit be enacted. The motion to recommit is also required because of a Republican strategy of considering separate tax bills without taking into account their overall cost. Voting against the motion to recommit is a vote for placing these tax reductions ahead of Social Security and Medicare solvency and a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit. It is simple; it is clarifying. I am not intending to belabor the point. What we have now in front of us is a very simple measure, whether or not we will proceed with these cuts or we will proceed with a healthy discussion about a Medicare prescription drug benefit. This is not the end of the debate by any stretch of the imagination. When we come back in September because of the President's veto pen, we are going to have a chance to improve this legislation. I hope that my colleagues will vote ``no'' on the measure in front of us after we vote for the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who I indicated earlier has done a terrific job with the legislation, and our difference here is a small one. We have time to correct it. He has done a good job with this work.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly reference what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has said. We continue to hold on this side that the tax proposals and tax cuts that have been proposed in this House over the last 6 weeks overwhelmingly are skewed toward helping the well off. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the very erudite gentleman.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Yes, it is.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the achievement of Tantasqua Regional Junior High School. This school in my district was one of sixty-six schools to be named a National Service-Learning Leader School, and was honored by this Presidential award this past June. I want to congratulate Tantasqua Junior High School for being recognized on such a national level. Their programs concerning service- learning have not only had a positive affect on the students of the school, but the community as well. Service-learning is a way of teaching that involves a combination of academics and community service, and is based on a joint effort from both teachers and students to improve the learning process. This style of education is on the rise in the United States and is increasingly being incorporated into both the standard and core courses taught in our nation's schools. This allows schools like Tantasqua Junior High to infuse standard courses with a sense of responsibility to community service, which in turn strengthens and bonds our communities by instilling in these teenagers a sense of commitment to giving to the community through volunteer work. Tantasqua Regional Junior High School is one of only three schools recognized in the State of Massachusetts and its faculty, students and principal, Daniel Durgin, have every right to be proud of this momentous achievement. The school's faculty was invited to Washington on June 15 for a reception attended by congressmen and congresswomen where they received even further training in service-learning techniques. These schools were acknowledged and recognized as models for other schools. The intent is that these selected institutions will lead other schools in their area towards a better education for our children. As recipients of this award, the students and faculty of Tantasqua Regional Junior High School should again be applauded and congratulated. Their efforts have produced a school of which both the state and country can be proud.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, just before I launch into my formal remarks here, when I was listening to the Republican leadership talk about tax equity and talking about the metamorphosis of their tax proposals over the last 6 or 7 years, has there been a greater hoax perpetrated on this House than their argument that they were going to simplify the Tax Code, they were going to pull it out by its roots, they were going to fundamentally restructure the Tax Code of America? Well, under their sponsorship and stewardship, thanks to them, it is more complicated than ever. Yesterday, the Washington Post ran an editorial about the marriage tax penalty. It was accurate in its analysis, but no one is going to pay much attention because we have moved beyond worrying about tax policy. The marriage penalty and the marriage bonus, the singles penalty and the singles bonus, all derived not from some nefarious scheme embedded in our Tax Code but from the fact that we have a progressive tax system. If two individuals, one working and one not, get married, their total tax payment under the current system goes down. They have a marriage bonus. They had a singles penalty. If two individuals get married, both working and both making about the same amount of money, they have a marriage penalty. They had a singles bonus. It stems from the progressive nature of our tax system. Putting that aside, we made a clear decision to get rid of the marriage penalty. That decision should be advanced on a broad bipartisan basis. However, that is not the choice here. The choice is to send the President a bill he will surely veto. The President has said he would sign a Republican version of the marriage tax cut if they would accept his version of a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens. The Republican leadership said, no thanks, because it does not fit the Philadelphia political agenda. But what is most annoying is the fact that the Republicans are using the alternative minimum tax to deny millions of Americans any relief under their bill. The promise of their bill is to cut taxes by about $250 billion, but that will result in an increase in the alternative minimum tax of $65 billion. That is why this bill is said to cost $180 billion. Make no mistake, it is deliberate. The interaction between the regular tax system and the alternative minimum tax is well known. Taxpayers in a State like Massachusetts claiming State and local tax deductions will most certainly be denied the promised relief that we have been told under the Republican version of this bill because personal exemptions and State and local tax deductions are not deductible against the minimum tax. The Democratic substitute makes sure that everyone who is promised relief in the bill actually gets it. Our proposal is far superior, and the President will sign it.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). I was very lucky when this competition began, because I have two of those 14 rivers designated in my congressional district as American Heritage Rivers. I think it is important to recall what the objectives were as we began down this course. First, natural resource and environmental protection, something we certainly can all rally to. Second, the question of tasteful growth and economic revitalization. Third, and perhaps the most important, historic and culture preservation. This initiative involves the coordination of a number of agencies, as well as the cooperation of local leaders, but the main initiative here is to help people who live near these rivers effectively coordinate their efforts to preserve, protect and revitalize the watershed areas. What is significant about the Blackstone River, where much of our industrial heritage grew from or certainly the Connecticut River, which is New England's mightiest river, is that virtually everything that occurred in the Pioneer Valley began because of the Connecticut River. There are few words in American history or, for that matter, world history, that are more powerful than the word river. The success of these initiatives not only are underway but the navigators have been put in place. The catalyst that these rivers offer I think for further tasteful growth and development are very important to all of us. Let me, if I can, take one moment to congratulate the late Senator John Chafee, who was a great champion of this initiative and, indeed, much of the growth in the Blackstone Valley and the success that we have had with that proposal stems from the commitment of former Senator Chafee, the navigators have been entrusted with the revitalization of these two rivers and they have done a tremendous job in a very, very short period of time. These proposals represent no threat to local property owners, indeed, if anything, they have enhanced the property values of those who live along these waterways. Let us not deny the hard-working residents and business leaders of the river valleys of the Connecticut and Blackstone our support.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, let me just call attention to something, with great deference, that the Speaker said. He says this should be above politics. Is he not right? Try to square that with the argument in front of us that we were not even allowed as members of the Democratic Party to bring an alternative to the floor. Do Members know why we could not bring an alternative to the floor? Because we would have won. We would have peeled off enough Members from the Republican side who would have voted for our plan, because this battle is about certainty versus uncertainty. Is there anybody who believes that the Republican party would do a better job with Medicare than we would? We argue that a certain benefit kicks in on a certain date and people can rely upon it. They argue that we should subsidize the insurance industry to provide a benefit to the general citizenry. Let me quote Chip Kahn, a former Republican staff director of the Subcommittee on Health: ``We continue to believe that the concept of the so-called drug-only private insurance simply will not work in practice. Designing a theoretical drug coverage model through legislative language does not guarantee that the private insurers will develop that product in the market,'' end of the argument.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, quickly in reference to what the previous speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), said before I enter into my formal remarks, the gentleman said we cannot legislate safety. We do with automobiles. We decide what kind of sheets and pillow cases infants sleep on. We make sure that all sorts of precautions are taken every day for the youngest among us, to ensure their safety. The argument we somehow cannot legislate safety. Let us be clear about the purpose of this amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). His objective is very simple and it is to put Smith & Wesson out of business. I represent the city where Smith & Wesson is located. They essentially are being punished for doing the right thing. This is sound public policy, not policy that was put upon them. It was negotiated after months of intense conversations back and forth. What Smith & Wesson said in this historic agreement is this, and I want everybody to listen to this, they want to change the way guns are designed, distributed and marketed. They want to add locking devices and other safety features, and they wanted to develop landmark smart gun technology. We ask ourselves in this Chamber who could be against all of that? Then we look to the other side; and we see who could be against this sensible public policy position, for their courage, Smith & Wesson is now being penalized by the gun lobby, House Republicans who adamantly oppose common sense safety legislation, legislation that the vast majority of the American people overwhelmingly support. Every year, 30,000 Americans including almost 12 children a day are killed by gun violence. Why do Members of this House fear the advancement of smart gun technology? Who could be opposed to the meaningful development of a firearm that can only be used by its rightful owner, and who would prevent children in the end from accidentally discharging these weapons? Why are the people on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber trying to thwart the unprecedented agreement between Smith & Wesson and the Clinton administration. Many times I have found myself on the other side of an initiative that Smith & Wesson would not be comfortable with, but I want to tell my colleagues something, they are a great employer. And that term Smith & Wesson is synonymous over many, many years of American history with a quality product that they, indeed, want to make better to speak to the concerns of the American people. It is no threat to the second amendment, which we frequently hear in this Chamber, and the Clinton administration has proceeded with wise and warranted public policy that speaks to the concerns of the American people in advancing what most people would believe to be a highly sensible initiative, smart gun technology, trigger locks. But the idea that Smith & Wesson would enter into protracted negotiations with the administration, come up with a marvelous solution that we would think everybody in this Chamber could come to agreement upon, they find themselves isolated. They find themselves set upon by the gun lobby. They find themselves set upon by an element that wants no sort of gun legislation in this country. In the end, all of us this evening have an opportunity to vote up or down on what is perhaps the most sensible initiative that has come forth over many years on the whole question of how to deal with guns in this society, and we will have a chance to be recorded later on, and that is the vote that people ought to remember in November.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I agree with all those who have said it is important for the future of America and for our economy to continue to participate in the World Trade Organization. It is simply common sense that the nation with the most open trade regime in the world would gain from supporting the international organization whose purpose is to open up the trade regimes of all nations and police those arrangements. Many Members today have talked about the faults of the WTO, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), is in part correct; they are many. But we have to keep in mind that these faults take place against a backdrop of international agreement and cooperation. We are not going to win every case, and sometimes the WTO is simply going to be wrong. But that does not mean that we are better off without having a WTO. It provides a place to resolve trade conflict that historically can easily escalate into more serious matters. There are a number of improvements to the WTO that we want and have been working to persuade other countries to agree to, and the Committee on Ways and Means speaks to that frequently. They involve opening up the WTO to public view and input, expanding the scope of trade agenda to fit the realities of modern technology and economic integration, consistent enforcement of core labor standards, bringing environmental considerations more forcefully into the discussion, and certainly reaching out to developing countries. However, there is something we can do here that is equally important, and we need to do it ourselves. In these trade debates, including the debate that we recently had over China, and others as well, they are infused with a certain cultural elitism that needs to be changed. Those who make key decisions in this Nation on trade issues are going to have their jobs, for the most part, after the decision is made. But there are thousands and thousands of people who believe that they will not, and they are scared about it. A factory that closes in New England and moves to Tennessee, a merger between two companies that leads to downsizing for cost efficiencies, and the start-up of new production lines overseas all look about the same from the factory floor. While we criticize and support the WTO throughout the morning, I would ask Members, Mr. Speaker, to think about the job we need to do to talk about trade in such a way that it is less threatening and more universally accepted. If we cannot change the tone of the debate, if we cannot sell free trade to those who are nervous about it, then perhaps we have a lot less to say than we thought. And I would predict that if we do not, and we simply vote against this resolution and go on our merry way, then we are going to have a much bigger problem 5 years from now.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to stand here in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). Not only is it sensible at this moment, but it gives us a rare opportunity, I think, also to highlight what has happened over the course of the last year when we have been, indeed, slow to react. This initiative that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is offering really is part of a great legacy in this House of Representatives. The legacy was established by Silvio Conte, a Republican Member of this House. He began the low-income heating oil program that so many Americans have benefited from who live below poverty guidelines. Now, we ask ourselves tonight, why is this amendment necessary? Last Friday, the average price for a gallon of gasoline rose to $1.67 per gallon. Some people across this Nation are paying more than $2 per gallon. These high prices are caused by low stocks, the results of the high prices experienced this past winter when oil dealers did not replenish their stocks. The summer driving season is in front of us, and the price of gas is unlikely to drop while demand remains so high. As the price of oil remains high as well, stocks are unlikely to be replenished. This will result in low stocks for the winter again. This is a dangerous cycle for all across the Nation who live below poverty guidelines. Many people in the Northeast last winter had to make the horrible choice between heating and eating. Anybody who has stood in a grocery checkout line, that is on the minds particularly of senior citizens. Now, we do not want that to happen again. We can act this evening to avoid another catastrophe from occurring this winter. The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve would protect low-income homeowners in the Northeast from having to choose once again between food and fuel. The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve is an environmentally conscious way to ensure enough fuel is on hand to combat another harsh winter. I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for calling attention in this timely manner to an issue that is going to be in front of us once fall sets upon us. But we have a chance to act tonight, to take the initiative, to grab the high ground and to proceed with a sensible plan. I hope all the Members of this House will stand in support of the Sanders amendment.